Monthly Archives: June 2017

While I like to think that I know a sizeable amount of Islamic Banking regulatory literature, I have to admit to procrastinate when it comes to the “ratios in Islamic Banking”. It started with the Liquidity Coverage Ratio guidelines issued about 2 years ago, and also the Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banks, which I promised myself to read by September. And all I know about the Tier 1 Capital is that this capital allows you to continue business in event of losses while Tier 2 Capital is used in a winding up scenario. I know where my gap in knowledge for this topic.

So, finding this little gem written by Dr Hanudin on the above is a real treat. Reminds me that there is still a whole topic to be digested and written about. Below is the extract, and you can find the full article in his page on this website. (Click Here)

Understanding CAR in the context of Islamic banking

Published by The Borneo Post (Sabah), 19th June 2017

By Dr Hanudin Amin

Extract:

BANK capital serves as a liquid bulwark to warrant the smooth operations of both Islamic and conventional banks, turning the banks into a better likelihood of endurance in the banking market. In general, a bank capital is viewed as the source of funds provided by the owners of the bank, which acts as a cushion to thwart a bank failure’s occurrence.

This week I draw your attention pertinent to capital adequacy ratio (CAR) in the context of Islamic banking. For this purpose, three questions are answered using an analytical technique: Question #1 – What is meant by the term CAR? Question #2 – What makes CAR’s components? Question #3 – Does an Islamic bank have a better CAR?

By definition, CAR is a measure of the amount of the capital owned by the bank that typically captures Tier 1 Capital and Tier 2 Capital and are divided by risk-weighted asset (RWA). CAR plainly acts as an enabler to protect depositors of CASAFA (i.e. current account, savings account & fixed account) in which their deposits are principally guaranteed for consumer protection. In addition, CASAFA is also subject to Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (MDIC) protection up to MYR 250,000 limit per account includes both the principal amount of a deposit and the interest/return, separately applied to Islamic and conventional deposits.

Recently, the topic of Tawarruq & Commodity Murabahah has been popular in the industry as both BNM and Shariah scholar have been asking operational questions on the implementation of Tawarruq arrangement in the industry. It seems, even with the Policy Documents, there are still some divergence in terms of operations and understanding of the minimum Shariah requirements for Tawarruq. Each financial institutions have their own operational abilities and processes that differs from one another; to have a standardised platform may be a bigger challenge than imagined.

The rise of Tawarruq in recent years should really not be a surprise to many observers. We are seeing that most financial institutions in Malaysia now consider a Tawarruq structure a “must have”, because there really is no options as other Banks also deals in it. It has become norm, and while scholars might take a view that Tawarruq should be a “last resort” option, there have been so much effort invested into making Tawarruq an efficient machine. Just take a look at the Bursa Suq Al Sila and what it is capable today.

Question : Is it Cash or Committed Limit?

The latest consideration of Tawarruq is on the treatment of Tawarruq funds after the transaction. What is it exactly and how is it been managed within the Bank, with the Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banks (CAFIB) implemented a few years ago (latest update this year 2017). In particular, when a customer is approved a certain limit (let’s say $1,000,000) and a single Tawarruq is done for $1,000,000 for the line (instead of multiple small Tawarruq for each usage of the amount within the $1,000,000 limit), where does the money goes, and what is it exactly in the eyes of Sharia?

To clarify, upon the completion of Tawarruq, real money of $1,000,000 is generated. Cash. It is not a “line” in the conventional terms, but it is money (actual cash) now belonging to the customer. He can draw out the money anytime.

But the practice is that the money is kept in the Bank’s books unless requested by the Customer, and by keeping this the Bank will give a “rebate” on the money kept in the Bank, similar treatment as if a “principal payment” is made (although it is re-drawable). In the meantime, the Bank utilises the money (taken as principal payment made) for its own banking business activities.

The question that I believe we will have to eventually address are on the following:

The Tawarruq is done on a single transaction for the full amount, therefore it is a full release of capital (i.e. fully funded). As such, it should have a “capital charge” consideration if it is not fully utilised by the customer. Bank has released fully the funds to customer (therefore Bank should be entitled to earn a full profit on the amount). The formula for profit would be $1,000,000 x Profit Rate – Cost of Capital. Note the Cost of Capital is on the full amount.

Then, the subsequent mechanism instead is as follows: since the customer did not fully utilise the funds, the customer is given a “rebate”. For example the customer only uses $50,000 of the $1,000,000. The formula for rebate is that ($1,000,000 less $50,000 = $950,000) x Profit Rate x period unutilised. Banks earn full Profit Rate on $50,000 and gives rebate based on $950,000.

Of course, Banks will utilise the $950,000 meanwhile but at what I imagine are for short-term instruments because the $950,000 is customer’s money (i.e. committed amount) and can be requested at anytime. Bank needs the funds to be as liquid as possible. So the Bank do not earn a lot from this “short term investment”.

Also, there is concurrent discussion as to when the amount is kept and used by the Bank, what is the underlying contract used for this “unutilised, principal payment which is drawable on demand” amount? Is it kept by the Bank as Qard (loan), Wadiah (safekeeping), Amanah (trust) or can it be taken as Tawarruq deposit (monetised obligation) or Mudharaba (investments)? Different Banks have differing views on this, but I suspect BNM is trying to standardise this understanding and practice.

But more importantly, while the Bank is giving customers “rebate” on the amount they do not utilise (but committed by the Bank), is there also “rebate” on Cost of Capital then? It seems unfair when it doesn’t. Tawarruq proceeds are deemed fully drawdown (based on full amount) and incurs full Capital Charge but is earning returns based on “only” the utilised amount. The rebate formula is very specific, and it does not contain the amount for “rebate” Capital Charge.

In the conventional Banking world, this is not so much of an issue. Their approach is simple: if the amount is “committed” to the customer, 2 things will happen:

Once the amount is drawdown i.e. utilised by the customer (lets say $50,000 utilised of the $1,000,000), then full price is charged on the $50,000

On the amount unutilised i.e. $950,000 the Bank will charge a “Commitment Fee” of 1.0% per annum (or any negotiated rate) on the unutilised (but committed) portion. While 1.0% per annum do not usually cover the full Capital Charge on the $950,000 it somewhat compensates the charge as the Bank (because $950,000 is still a “limit” and not Cash payout) can still use the unutilised amount in its day to day banking activities i.e. investment in short term financial instruments.

Scholars generally do not agree with the concept of Commitment Fees, and there is specific BNM guidelines prohibiting the charge of Commitment Fees in these specific scenarios.

The Capital Charge factor

I still think there is a disconnect somewhere that while we aim to achieve the same end result by the practice of Ibra’ i.e. “Rebate”, but with Capital Cost coming into play, it may eventually seem that the cost of running an Islamic Banking business can be higher than a conventional Bank. It really depends on how we interpret the guidelines and the treatment on Tawarruq especially the single Tawarruq structure where the full amount is transacted i.e. whether it is a full Capital Charge or otherwise.

I know what BNM usually advise i.e. it is a full Capital Charge. But this concurrently means, without Commitment Fees on the unutilised Customer portion, it may result in extra costs for the Bank. Now I am not suggesting we introduce Commitment Fees for Islamic Banking; this idea of Commitment Fees is a conventional banking concept for recovering opportunity costs, which may not sit well under Shariah consideration.

But in the world we operate today (where each $$$ is risk weighted to a cost), this translates to “Actual Costs” incurred by the Bank, based on the interpretation for the “single full amount Tawarruq transaction”. And Shariah may want to consider this as it is a real “Actual Costs” and not opportunity costs. By letting the money sit still, the Bank incur real, actual costs which is not recoverable as per guidelines. It may have started as “recovering opportunity costs” but if you really think about it, this is above opportunity costs. Maybe in the conventional space, they may even revise Commitment Fees to recover BOTH Opportunity Costs as well as Capital Charge.

So, my question is this: should both the industry and Shariah scholars re-look at the basis of Commitment Fees (in the context of how Tawarruq works), or re-think about the “Rebate” mechanism and perhaps have an adjusted formula to factor in a “Rebate on the Capital Charge”?

Can Shariah consider this mechanism to recover a real cost incurred by an Islamic Bank?

In the meantime, Happy Ramadhan to all, and may you have blessed month ahead.

Sometimes, as a practitioner, we wonder what motivates a person to subscribe to Islamic Banking products. Is it really based on the attractive features of a product, trying out something new, or is there an ingrained desire to subscribe to a Sharia compliant product? I know many non-Muslims subscribe to Islamic Banking products based on the intrinsic benefits afforded by the products, such as a more fairer penalty terms, transparent fees and charges, and flexibility in settling the accounts early.

But what of Muslims? How can we understand the triggers that encourage a Muslim to subscribe to a Sharia-compliant product?

I came across this writing by Dr Hanudin Amin which mentions a term that I hardly hear in the industry; Religiosity. It refers to the conceptual level of a person’s “piousness” to be marked into different levels (index), and he aptly split it into 3 general categories i.e. 1) Pious Religious, 2) Moderately Religious, and 3) Off-Hand Religious. His paper suggests that the Pious Religious group tends to accept Islamic Banking products more compared to other groups (in his study it’s focused on Home Financing-i). It also proposes that perhaps it is worthwhile to consider packaging Islamic Banking products based on the different levels of “Religiosity” to better appeal to them. This may indeed widen the scope for acceptance as products may be perceived differently by different people, although essentially it is the same product.

To read a bit more on the study, do have a read on the research below.

RELIGIOSITY INDEX FOR ISLAMIC HOME FINANCING IN SABAH

By Dr Hanudin Amin*

Excerpt :Earlier muslim scholars have supported the finding that a consumer’s religiosity has a significant effect on consumption in a muslim context (e.g. Elgari, 1990). Someone who approaches an Islamic bank for a mortgage is endowed with a certain level of iman. Bendjilali (1995) believes that choosing interest-free financing is blessed by Allah (SWT), hence it is rewarded. Bendjilali (1995) points out that: “A muslim consumer who approaches the Islamic bank to get a loan for a real transaction to be financed through murabaha mode is endowed with a certain level of iman. The degree of iman will indicate the degree of compliance to the Shariah”.

Tell us what you think. Should Islamic Banking products designed to a specific level of religiosity or can the one-size-fits-all approach appeal to everybody? Comments appreciated.

*The author is an Associate Professor/Dean at the Labuan Faculty of International Finance, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Labuan International Campus. He has a PhD from the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) in Islamic Banking and Finance (PG310163).He can be contacted at hanudin@ums.edu.my